On Sunday 10 December 2006 03:35, Chris King wrote:
> > My point here is this: Ocaml is not Java (a fact we should all be
> > gratefull for, IMHO). Simply because Java and C++ do something, doesn't
> > mean that it's a good thing to do.
>
> One thing Java (sort of) gets right is keeping track of which
> exceptions a function can throw, making it easy to ensure that some
> deeply nested piece of code won't cause the entire application to die
> from some obscure exception. I'd love to see a similar feature in
> O'Caml, whereby the exceptions which a function can raise are part of
> its type and are inferred and checked by the compiler.
This has been done. There was a tool called ocamlexc that did whole-program
analysis to find out which exceptions could propagate where. However, it
wasn't useful enough to be kept up to date.
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/old_caml_site/ocamlexc/ocamlexc.htm
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists